Christ and the Decree by Richard A. Muller

Baker Academic, 2008, 240pp 

Why should a busy pastor give time to studying a work of historical theology like this? Surely we'd be better off reading a how-to manual on sermon illustrations, counselling, leadership, or what have you. If we must read theology, let it be an entry level piece, or a nice little primer that won't overload our poor little minds. A work of in-depth scholarship about what people from hundreds of years ago used to think about stuff, what's the point in that?

Well, because we might learn something and gain valuable insights into God's word and ways. Also, those insights may provide us with resources to help resolve some of the theological controversies that are raging in contemporary evangelical circles. Arguments over the eternal submission of the Son, for example. 

It is sometimes claimed that the theologians who followed Calvin and the early Reformers regressed into scholasticism. Not quite arguing over angels on a pin head, but as near as. They moved away from the biblical simplicity of Calvin and Bucer and began to employ hair splitting theological definitions, and developed elaborate theological systems. Those systems used Calvin's teaching on predestination as the axiom from which they deduced their doctrines. 

As Muller demonstrates, however, Calvin was not averse to using the apparatus of scholastic theology in giving expression to his thought. Reformed orthodoxy that followed in his wake continued where he left off. Both in terms of methodology and as they developed key Reformation doctrines. When it came to predestination, it was not the axiom from which they deduced their doctrinal systems by logical extension. 

Predestination underlined the Reformed emphasis on salvation by grace alone. But the decree was discussed in relation to  higher order doctrines, with a concentration on trinitarian ground of decree and its Christological focus. Christ and the decree was the point where the infinite and finite, the eternal and historical met. Christ was seen in relation to the decree in three ways: he is the electing God together with the Father and Holy Spirit; the Elect One, chosen to become the divine/human mediator; and the one in whom sinners were chosen for salvation. 

When it comes to Christology, the Reformed were fully in line with the teaching of the Definition of Chalcedon in confessing that Christ was a divine person with a human nature. But their preoccupation was on Christ as mediator, acting as prophet, priest and king to redeem his people from sin. Close attention was given to Christ's mediatorial work in both his state of humiliation, from his incarnation to the cross, and exaltation, from his resurrection to eternity. That the incarnate Son was and remained fully God when he became man was safeguarded by the so-called extra Calvinisticum. He who was held in his mother's arms as a baby also upheld the universe by his power as the Son of God.

As I say, there has been a lot of rather heated discussion in recent days over whether we may rightly speak of the eternal submission of the Son to the Father. In a way the phrase sounds right because the New Testament bears witness to the fact that the Son was sent into the world by the Father. And that arrangement was made in eternity. In another way, we might feel a bit queasy over the idea that the Son stood in a relationship of eternal submission to the Father. Do we not confess that Father, Son and Holy Spirit are homoousios, of the same divine being? The fullness of that divine being is in all three persons, ruling out any notion of subordination.

Calvin taught that concerning his divine nature, Christ was God in himself, autotheos, but concerning his person he was of the Father. The Reformer acknowledged that there is an order of persons in the Trinity; Father, Son and Holy Spirit, but insisted that all three persons were equally God, with one divine being and will. Muller brings out that Calvin and his theological heirs successors grasped this point very well when it came to discussing predestination. They saw that Christ was not simply the Elect One, or the means by which the decree was executed. He was also, together with the Father and the Spirit, author of the decree to save. In that sense, the Son was self-designated to act as mediator, willingly submitting to be sent into the world by the Father. 

Reformed thinkers accepted the Partristic insight that in their external actions the three persons of the Trinity act as one, but not in the same way. All things are of the Father, by the Son and through the Spirit. This entails no hint of ontological subordination on the part of the Son as God, but recognises that it was singularly appropriate due to the order of persons that it was the Second Person of the Trinity who became incarnate. 

Talk of the eternal submission of Son to Father is therefore inappropriate. At least it needs to be highly qualified. Better to speak of the Son submitting to the will of God that he be sent into the world by the Father.  But it must be underlined that by 'God' we mean one God in three persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. We may, indeed then say that the Son is the Electing God, the Elect one, and the one in whom we are elected for salvation. It is partly because we seem to have forgotten that the Son is himself the Electing God that we are having such trouble over the language of eternal submission with its subordinationist overtones. See here for more on Calvin, Beza on this theme. 

Muller expertly traces lines of development from Calvin through to Polanus and Perkins by way of Beza, Ursinus, Zanchi and others. He corrects the notion that Calvin was the gold standard of Reformed theology and that the slightest doctrinal development should be viewed as a deviation. The whole 'Calvin and the Calvinists' thing popularised by R. T. Kendall is shown to be baseless. 

Of Amandus Polanus von Polansdorf (1561-1610) and William Perkins (1558-1602) Muller writes,

In their thought we perceived at last the convergence of parallel lines of christological and predestinarian doctrinal development, the convergence of which can only occur in the infinite depth of the Trinity. And when the lines do converge in the realisation that the Son considered as God is the source, while considered as mediator in union with the human nature, self-determined executor of the decree, then on this infinite scale we also perceive the ultimate doctrinal "arch" of which not predestination but the trinitarian ground of all theology is the keystone. This structure had developed from Calvin, reaching fruition at the end of the century in the codification of early orthodoxy.

Muller's work also teases out the pastoral implications of the orthodox Reformed treatment of Christ and the decree. How are poor sinners meant to know whether they are among the elect? The decree in itself lies hidden in God. But the God who decrees is no deus nudus absconditus, an inaccessibly hidden deity. Muller explains, "There can be no deus nudus absconditus because the Christ who redeems is, according to his divinity, the God who decrees." The trinitarian foundation and Christological focus of the decree means that the believer can be sure they are elect because the Father has drawn them into saving union with Christ by the Spirit. We are in him by faith because we were chosen in him before the foundation of the world. Christ, as Calvin put it is "the mirror of our election." 

Christ as the electing God, the Elect One and the One in whom we were elected

Been tying to make an assault on some as yet unread books on my shelves. I've not bought anything new for a while, no books to review and no lectures to prepare for. At least for a bit. I got hold of this one must have been a couple of years ago. When I was thinking about election in Christ in the writings of Thomas Goodwin (see here). If ever I do some more degree level studies, I'd like to do some work on election in Christ. Don't know whether that'll ever happen. 

Anyway, Muller is an important interpreter of Calvin's thought and has gone to a lot of trouble to trace the lines of continuity between Calvin and the Reformed Orthodox tradition that followed in his wake. Basically, if you think Calvin was a 'pure biblical theologian' and that the Reformed Orthodox were little better than a bunch of hair-splitting scholastics, you need a good dose of Muller to set you straight.

As you can see from the title, the subject under consideration is Christ and the decree. In the first chapter, Muller expertly sets out Calvin's teaching on the subject. It's a marvel of biblical insight and conceptual clarity. Muller gives special attention to the interplay between the Reformer's thought on the person of Christ and the divine decree. 

The Son as God is author of the decree to save together with the Father and the Holy Spirit. In their internal will as well as in their external actions, the persons of the Trinity are undivided. In that triune decree the Son is chosen to carry out the work of mediator. As the Elect One he will take human nature to redeem those who were chosen in him. Muller explains, "Christ stands as mediator, between God and man but also between the decree and its execution and must somehow be subordinate to the decree." (p. 36). The eternal decree is fulfilled in time through Christ's incarnation and saving work. Calvin is clear that the Son was subordinate to the decree only in as much as he was mediator who would take on flesh, not as God, per se. Muller further summarises Calvin's thought,

As mediator Christ is subordinate to the decree while as Son of God he is one with the Father and in no way subordinate. The Son of God stands behind the decree while the Son as mediator is executor of the decree. The relationship between the distinction concerning the decree and its execution and the extra calvinisticum now becomes clear. In the execution of the decree or work of salvation, the Son is wholly given, in subordination to the eternal plan, as mediator. But the Son as God a se ipso cannot be wholly contained in the flesh or in any way subsumed under the execution of the decree. (p. 38)

Yes, Christ was designated the Elect One in whom we were elected to salvation, but he was never less than the electing God, homoousios with the Father and united with him in saving purpose. The value of Calvin's Christocentric doctrine of election is that his account directs the believer to Christ as the 'mirror of our election'. We don't have to try and pry into God's hidden decree to see whether we are elect. We simply look to Christ. He is the Elect One in whom we were chosen. If we are in him now by faith, then we were graciously elected in him in eternity, Acts 13:48. The eternal decree; its execution in time, and its application in the experience of the believer are in, through and by Christ. He is all in all. 

Thomas Goodwin on election in Christ: what it is

See here and here for parts one and two of this series that has been left hanging in the air for some months. 

Having ruled out several deficient ways of understanding the believer's election in Christ, Goodwin proceeds to give his positive exposition of the subject. 

1. Christ, the federal head of the elect 

The Puritan divine construes election in Christ in federal terms. He does not use the language of "federal headship" that is often found later Reformed theology, but his treatment has a distinct federal flavour. "Jesus Christ in election is head of the elect. He was from the first considered and ordained by God as a Common Person, to represent us." (p. 70, Exposition of Ephesians: Chapter 1 to 2:10). Goodwin draws an analogy between Adam and Christ. All humanity were created in Adam. As the first man (1 Corinthians 15:47), Adam acted in a representative capacity. "Thus in choosing Christ God looked on him as a Common Person, as a second Adam, and chose us in him." (p. 71). But the fact that elect were chosen in Christ as a 'Common Person' does not mean that God's people were not chosen individually and personally. "God did not choose in the general... he knoweth the very persons fully and particularly; yea and distinctly viewed them when he elected them. And notwithstanding he thus chose us as distinct persons from Christ, yet still our election is in Christ. (p. 71). 

It is because the Son of God was chosen as Head of the elect in eternity that he assumed our nature and came to redeem the people of God in the fullness of time. But even prior to the incarnation Christ acted as Mediator of the covenant of grace. He was a Common Person to the fathers under the Old Testament, forgiving their sins by virtue of the atonement he would one day perform on their behalf (p. 73). 

Election in Christ is the foundation of the covenant of grace. "And so a covenant was struck between God and us, through Christ's representing us, as the covenant of works was between God and us considered in Adam. And thence it is that Christ, by the prophet Isaiah is called 'our covenant'." (p. 75). That believer's election is in Christ guarantees they will  receive the blessings of the covenant. Goodwin cites Paul's words in 2 Timothy 1:9, 'the grace that was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began.' If God chose his people in themselves, the apostle could have written that he purposed to give them grace before the world began. But Paul says that grace was actually given to the elect in Christ Jesus, as he stands as a 'Common Person' representing his people who are chosen in him. "God in the act of choosing us gave us to Christ, and in giving us to Christ he chose us." (p. 74). 

2. The order of election 

According to Goodwin, Christ was chosen first, and we in him. "Jesus Christ was the Head of election, and of the elect of God; and so in order of nature first, though in order of time we were elected in him. In the womb of election he, the Head came out first, and then we, the members." (p. 74). Note that in saying that Christ was chosen first and we in him, Goodwin is careful to say that he is speaking of an order of nature rather than time. This is because the expositor is mindful that Paul teaches that we were chosen in Christ "before the foundation of the world" (Ephesians 1:4), which Goodwin takes to mean "from eternity" (p. 77). He reasons, "Before the world was there was nothing but eternity. If you look past the world, you put your head up into eternity." (p. 77). Goodwin tentatively construes Paul's words in a slightly supralapsarian sense, agreeing with those who understood the words "before the foundation of the world" to refer to the order of God's decrees, not simply to the act of creation. He sees this as a further evidence of God's love for his elect, that "he chose you before he purposed the world; he preferred you to all the world." (p. 78). The seventeenth century Puritan almost anticipates modern day multiverse theory saying, "Value God and his love more than all the world, though there were millions of them." (p. 79). This might seem like rather abstract theologizing, but as ever with the Puritans, Goodwin's  theology is put to practical use,

Fear not the ruin of kingdoms, not of the world, for your being depends not on either of them; God chose you before all worlds. Let kingdoms totter, and mountains be thrown in the midst of the sea, 'we have a kingdom that cannot be shaken,' Heb. xii.28. (p. 80).

3. Chosen in him

And so Thomas Goodwin offers a federal explanation of election in Christ. Jesus is not the meritorious cause of our election. God chose his people simply out of love and free grace. But neither is union with Christ merely the goal of election. The Puritan would not have agreed with the words of Louis Berkhof, that Christ was merely  'the mediate cause of the realisation of election' (see here). The elect were chosen in Christ as a Common Person, the second Adam, the Head of God's new humanity who cannot be considered, even in the predestinating decree of God apart from Christ or outside of Christ, "For God chose you in him; the being you had was in him before the world was." (p. 77). As Herman Bavinck put it,

It is not that Christ was thereby the ground and foundation of election; but the election of the church is the very first benefit bestowed on the church; and even this benefit already occurred in union with Christ, and above all it has its goal, not as its foundation, that all other benefits - rebirth, faith and so forth - will be imparted to the church by Christ. In this sense, then, the election of Christ logically precedes our own. (Reformed Dogmatics, Volume 2, p. 404) 

Besides a certain "holy Baines" (p. 70) or "Mr. Baines" (p. 78) Goodwin refrains from citing sources for his views on election in Christ. But what he says is certainly in keeping with the teaching of John Calvin. Admittedly, Goodwin's highly developed federalist construction is not found in the Reformer, but Calvin insisted that we are not chosen in ourselves, to the end that we might be united to Christ, but we are loved and elected in him. Hence it is foolish, harmful and dangerous to contemplate election apart from Christ. He is the mirror of our election,

But if we are elected in him, we cannot find the certainty of our election in ourselves; and not even in God the Father, if we look at him apart from the Son. Christ, then, is the mirror in which we ought, and in which, without deception, we may contemplate our election. For since it is into his body that the Father has decreed to ingraft those whom from eternity he wished to be his, that he may regard as sons all whom he acknowledges to be his members, if we are in communion with Christ, we have proof sufficiently clear and strong that we are written in the Book of Life. (The Institutes of the Christian Religion III:24:5). 

Robert Letham, who  is critical of Berkhof's stance on election in Christ argues, "Thus, our entire salvation is received in Christ, election included. Union with Christ is existent at the point of our election in eternity." (The Work of Christ, Robert Letham, IVP, 1993, p. 55-56). Salvation is by grace, through faith (Ephesians 2:8). Prior to faith in Christ a person remains subject to the wrath of God upon their sin (Ephesians 2:3 cf. John 3:36). But the gift of faith itself is granted by virtue of the people of God being chosen in Christ (Ephesians 1:3-4). Goodwin comments, "if all be given us in Christ, then faith also [is given us], as we are considered already chosen in Christ" (p. 66).

The Puritan expositor's Christocentric doctrine of election is grounded in sound biblical exegesis and is consistent with the best insights of Reformed theology. It is deeply pastoral, pointing the believer to Christ in whom we are chosen, rather than leaving us mystified and unsure in the face of God's inscrutable decree. Above all, Goodwin gives due honour to the God, who gave us grace in Christ Jesus before the world was made. He calls us to love the electing God more than a million worlds.

In the next and concluding post in this series I plan to consider what Goodwin has to say on God's purpose in electing his people in Christ. 

Thomas Goodwin on election in Christ: what it's not

Following the introductory post, we now delve right into Goodwin's exposition of Ephesians 1:4. As he opens up the text, the Puritan scholar first of all explains what is not meant by "chosen in him". This is a good place to start as election in Christ is often misunderstood. Only after having dealt with a number of misconceptions does our painstaking expositor give attention to the positive meaning of Paul's words. I won't go into all the ins and outs of Goodwin's engagement with what he takes be inadequate explanations of the text in question. Suffice to say that he is especially concerned to rule out the following  three lines of interpretation:

1. God did not choose people because he foreknew they would believe in Christ

The Arminian understanding of the verse says that God chooses people on the basis of foreknown faith in Christ. As we might expect, good Calvinist as he was, Goodwin objects to this construction. But he does so not on simply on the basis of cast iron Calvinistic logic, imposing his pre-packaged Reformed theology on the text. Rather he rejects to the Arminian view for sophisticated exegetical reasons. 

First  because it would mean that if God chooses on the basis of faith foreseen, then election is not of persons, but of graces. God did not choose propositions, 'He that believes shall be saved', but persons, 'chose us in him'. This admittedly isn't Goodwin's strongest argument. An Arminian might object that they teach that God chooses people who believe, not the faith of those who believe, but this is only the first point in a cumulatively persuasive case. 

Second, Goodwin brings contextual considerations into view. In Ephesians 1:3-4 Paul says that, 'God has blessed us with all spiritual blessings in Christ...according as he has chosen us in him'. If faith is one of the blessings that is bestowed upon us 'in Christ', then it cannot properly be said that God chose to save those whom he foreknew would believe in Christ. It is only because a person is already in Christ in some sense that he is blessed with the gift of faith. 

Third, Goodwin reflects on the fact that according to Paul in Ephesians 1:4, God chose us in Christ, 'that we should be holy and without blame before him'. He reasons that God did not choose his people because he foresaw their holiness. Rather, he chose them in order that they might be made holy. Faith, like holiness is a fruit of election, not its cause. Goodwin cites Acts 13:48. And so he thoughtfully refutes the traditional Arminian interpretation of Paul's words. 

2. God did not choose people because of what Christ would do for them

Next, Goodwin considers the proposal that the elect are chosen for the sake of Christ's merit. While it is true that we have 'redemption by his blood' (Ephesians 1:7), this is not the cause of our election. Scripture never suggests that this is the case. And as Goodwin points out, making Christ's passion the meritorious cause of election undermines the sovereign freedom of God's grace. The expositor refers to Ephesians 1:5, 'according to the good pleasure of his will'. Christ's merits are the cause of our salvation, but not the reason why God chose us to be saved. If grace was merited by Christ, then God was in some way obligated to save us. Goodwin rightly regards any such a construction 'a derogation from God's free grace'.  

Goodwin identifies this second view as belonging to 'Popish divines and interpreters'. But Charles Hodge comes dangerously close to this position in his commentary on Ephesians, saying, 'It was in Christ as their head and representative that they were chosen to holiness and eternal life, and, therefore in virtue of what he was to do on their behalf.' (emphasis added, p. 31, Baker, 1980 repr.) Similarly, Hendriksen argues that God was able to chose unworthy sinners because Christ would 'in their stead...satisfy all the requirements of the law'. (author's emphasis, p. 76, Banner 1990 repr.). But this is to put the cart of redemption before the horse of God's free and unconditional love for sinners. Hendriksen almost makes election a matter of divine justice rather than grace, which is plain contrary to 2 Timothy 1:9 etc.  

The Father did not need the Son to satisfy his justice to win his electing love for his people. Goodwin does not make this point, but his case is bolstered when we take the words "in love" at the end of Ephesians 1:4 together with "having predestined us" in Ephesians 1:5, "in love having predestined us" (cf. Romans 8:29). Scripture does not teach that God loved the world because his only begotten Son gave himself up to the cross for sinners. Rather, it is the other way round. God so loved the world that he have his only begotten Son (John 3:16). As John Murray writes, "It was in pursuance of electing love that God sent his Son into the world... in election there is the assurance that God loved sinners from eternity, that he loved sinners with such invincible love that he did not spare his own Son but delivered him up for them." (p. 127, Collected Writings of John Murray, Volume one, Banner of Truth, 1989 repr). 

Goodwin rightly saw that any suggestion that Christ's redemptive suffering was the meritorious cause of our election runs counter to the Bible's insistence on God's free and gracious love for sinners.  

3.  God did not chose people in order that they might be united to Christ 

Finally, Goodwin refutes the idea that what Paul means by 'chosen in him' is that God chose us in eternity in order that we might be united to Christ in the fullness of time. Reformed theologian Louis Berkhof rightly says that, 'Christ as Mediator is not the impelling, moving, or meritorious cause of election'. But he has not caught Paul's drift when he states that Christ is merely the 'mediate cause of the realisation of election.' (p. 114, Systematic Theology, Banner of Truth Trust, 1984). As Goodwin insists, Paul did not write that God has chosen us to be in Christ, making union with Christ the goal, much less 'the mediate cause of the realisation of election'. The text simply says that we were chosen 'in him' before the foundation of the world. John Murray is one with Goodwin on this, "those who will be saved were not even contemplated by the Father in the ultimate counsel of his predestinating love apart from Christ. As far back as we can go in tracing salvation to its fountain we find "union with Christ"; it is not something tacked on; it is there from the outset." (p. 162, Redemption Accomplished and Applied, Banner of Truth, 1979). 

Goodwin's exposition of election in Christ in Ephesians 1:4-5 not only excludes erroneous Arminian readings of the text. His careful exegesis of Paul's words and nuanced theological thinking also provide a necessary corrective to some defective explanations of election in Christ within the Reformed tradition. 

Thomas Goodwin on election in Christ: introduction

Those words, 'he hath chosen us in him' have bred more controversy than any so few words almost in the whole Bible and do therefore require some time to open them. (Thomas Goodwin, Exposition of Ephesians, p. 65).   

The other week I started a series of sermons on "Union with Christ". Beginning at the beginning, or even before the Beginning, the first message was on Ephesians 1:3-6, "Chosen in Christ". In the course of sermon prep I looked up several modern commentaries, (F.F. Bruce, NICNT, F. Foukles, Tyndale,  & J. R. W. Stott, BST), but none of them had anything much to say on election in Christ. So, I pulled Lloyd-Jones' God's Ultimate Purpose off the shelf and glanced through his sermon on Ephesians 1:4 entitled, Chosen in Him. The good Doctor has some helpful things to say about election and predestination in general, but, despite the title, did not expound what Paul meant by "chosen in him". In desperation I turned to Hendrickson, who at least discusses what "chosen in him means", but virtually makes Christ the meritorious cause of our election, which isn't quite right. Charles Hodge is better in his Commentary on the Epistle to the Ephesians, explaining the phrase in terms of Christ's federal headship, but, again he veers towards saying that God chose us in virtue of what Christ would do for us. This undermines Scripture's witness to election as God's purely gratuitous and loving choice of his people. 

In this instance, works of systematic theology provided a better guide as to the meaning of Paul's words than the Bible commentators. John Murray's treatment of Ephesians 1:4 in Redemption Accomplished and Applied stuck in my mind from reading him some years back (see this post). It wasn't too long ago that I'd studied Herman Bavinck on The Divine Counsel in The Reformed Dogmatics Volume 2 (see here). Also, Oliver Crisp gives valuable attention to this matter in his God Incarnate: Explorations in Christology (reviewed here). It only goes to show that simply relying on commentators in sermon prep can prove inadequate. Wider theological reading can really enrich our understanding of Scripture. But one commentator did not let me down. It was the Puritan Thomas Goodwin, who, in his day was regarded as the "Greatest Pulpit Exegete of St. Paul". Reading him was like entering another world where deep theological reflection go hand in hand with a sustained and detailed exegesis of the text. You'll find his work on Ephesians 1:4 in his Exposition of Ephesians: Chapter 1 to 2:10. In a series of posts I hope to try and sketch out something of Goodwin's insightful teaching on election in Christ. 

A very rough guide to Calvin's theology: Election

Not all are brought to saving faith in Christ. Why is it that some believe and others do not? This brings us to a discussion of Calvin's doctrine of predestination. Some are under the impression that predestination was the the main theme in his theology, but this is not the case. He doesn't even begin to discuss the doctrine until he nears the end of Book III of the Institutes. For Calvin presestination was not a matter of cold logic. He was convinced of it because he found the doctrine in Scripture, especially in Romans 8 and Ephesians 1. But he did not allow the doctrine to dominate his theology. The Reformer dealt with the election in a biblically proportionate way. Calvin taught that God has chosen to save some fallen human beings, simply on the basis of his free grace and love. He has chosen not to save others. They will suffer God’s just wrath for their sin. But how can we know if we are among the elect? We cannot peer into God's hidden decree of salvation. Calvin advises us to look to Christ, whom he describes as 'the mirror of our election'. If we are united to him by faith, then we can be assured that we were chosen in him before the foundation of the world.

"First, if we seek for the paternal mercy and favour of God, we must turn our eyes to Christ, in whom alone the Father is well pleased (Mt. 3:17). When we seek for salvation, life, and a blessed immortality [we must go to him], since he alone is the fountain of life and the anchor of salvation, and the heir of the kingdom of heaven. Then what is the goal of election, but just that, being adopted as sons by the heavenly Father, we may by his favour obtain salvation and immortality? How ever much you may speculate and discuss you will perceive that in its ultimate object it goes no farther. Hence, those whom God has adopted as sons, he is said to have elected, not in themselves, but in Christ Jesus (Eph. 1:4); because he could love them only in him, and only as being previously made partakers with him, honour them with the inheritance of his kingdom."

It is foolish, harmful and dangerous to contemplate election apart from Christ. We know that we are elect by believing in him and contemplating him,

"But if we are elected in him, we cannot find the certainty of our election in ourselves; and not even in God the Father, if we look at him apart from the Son. Christ, then, is the mirror in which we ought, and in which, without deception, we may contemplate our election. For since it is into his body that the Father has decreed to engraft those whom from eternity he wished to be his, that he may regard as sons all whom he acknowledges to be his members, if we are in communion with Christ, we have proof sufficiently clear and strong that we are written in the Book of Life." (Institutes III:24:5).

Calvin's Christ-centred doctrine of election helps to save the Christian from despairing of ever knowing if his name is written in the Book of Life.

*Portrait by Oliver Crisp.

Christ, the mirror of our election

It is common in Reformed Dogmatics to say that we have been chosen in order that we might be united to Christ. In that sense, union with Christ is the goal of election. Louis Berkhof says explicitly that, "Christ as Mediator is not the impelling, moving, or meritorious cause of election". Christ is merely the "mediate cause of the realisation of election." (Systematic Theology, Banner of Truth Trust, 1984, p. 114). But the New Testament seems to imply that we are chosen in Christ, not simply chosen that we might be united to him. The elective decision of God is itself Christocentric. Consider these two Scriptures:

"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love" (Ephesians 1:3 & 4)

"Therefore do not be ashamed of the testimony of our Lord, nor of me His prisoner, but share with me in the sufferings for the gospel according to the power of God, who has saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was given to us in Christ Jesus before time began" (2 Timothy 1:8 & 9).

Robert Letham points out that Reformed Theology was comfortable with the idea of the people of God being elected in Christ until the advent of the Arminian controversy in the 17th century. Jacobus Arminius taught that God elected those whom he foresaw would believe in Christ. Talk of Christ as the basis of election therefore sounded suspiciously Arminian to sensitive Calvinistic ears. Indeed, when Martinus of Breme proposed Christ as the foundation of election during the famous Synod of Dort, Gomarus, a conservative Calvinist challenged him to a duel! (See Robert Letham, The Work of Christ, IVP, 1996, p. 55).

The separation of Christ from election in later Reformed Theology is to be regretted. It has sometimes led to Christians having trouble with assurance of salvation. How can we know that we are elect if election is considered apart from Christ? Calvin had a much more Biblical and pastorally helpful account of the role of Christ in election. He establishes that we are chosen not in ourselves, with the goal of being united with Christ, but we are loved and elected in him,

"First, if we seek for the paternal mercy and favor of God, we must turn our eyes to Christ, in whom alone the Father is well pleased (Mt. 3:17). When we seek for salvation, life, and a blessed immortality, to him also must we retake ourselves, since he alone is the fountain of life and the anchor of salvation, and the heir of the kingdom of heaven. Then what is the end of election, but just that, being adopted as sons by the heavenly Father, we may by his favor obtain salvation and immortality? How much soever you may speculate and discuss you will perceive that in its ultimate object it goes no farther. Hence, those whom God has adopted as sons, he is said to have elected, not in themselves, but in Christ Jesus (Eph. 1:4); because he could love them only in him, and only as being previously made partakers with him, honor them with the inheritance of his kingdom".

It is foolish, harmful and dangerous to contemplate election apart from Christ. He is the mirror of election. We know that we are elect by believing in him and contemplating him,

"But if we are elected in him, we cannot find the certainty of our election in ourselves; and not even in God the Father, if we look at him apart from the Son. Christ, then, is the mirror in which we ought, and in which, without deception, we may contemplate our election. For since it is into his body that the Father has decreed to ingraft those whom from eternity he wished to be his, that he may regard as sons all whom he acknowledges to be his members, if we are in communion with Christ, we have proof sufficiently clear and strong that we are written in the Book of Life". The Institutes of the Christian Religion III:24:5 (here).

John Murray's exegetical approach to systematic theology alerted him to this aspect of election. According to him, "The people of God are not contemplated even in the purpose of grace apart from Christ (Ephesians 1:4)." (Redemption Accomplished and Applied Banner of Truth Trust, 1979, p. 93). He expands on this later in the book when commenting on the text to which he just referred,

"The Father elected from eternity, but he elected in Christ. We are not able to understand all that is involved, but the fact is plain enough that there was no election of the Father in eternity apart from Christ. And that means that those who will be saved were not even contemplated by the Father in the ultimate counsel of his predestinating love apart from Christ. As far back as we can go in tracing salvation to its fountain we find "union with Christ"; it is not something tacked on; it is there from the outset." (Op cit. p. 162).

If we would make our callling and election sure, we must not look to the elective decree in itself, but to Christ, the mirror of election.